23 April 2008

Web 2.0; Da Vinci 1.5; readers 0

Via 101 reasons to stop writing blog, I learn that Dan Brown is to revise the Da Vinci Code to correct various minor and not-so minor errors in the previous version. Although small changes have been made in various print runs, this new project is a proper revision, named Da Vinci Code 1.5,  that will be "like re-reading the book for the first time".
From the stop writing post: "When asked if the revisions made substantive changes to the plot of the novel, Brown replied, "Oh sure. When you take out all the factual errors, baseless conjecture and flawed reasoning, the whole storyline basically collapses. All you’re left with is a guy who’s good at solving puzzles running around Europe for no reason. I don’t even like Europe. The new version is entirely set in Connecticut, so I could fact-check everything myself without having to drive more than two hours." "
Read on at the link for the full horror. Unfortunately, owing to work load, the publication date of the revision has slipped from 1 April to 31 April. Can't wait.
23 Apr 2008 19:34:53 | Humour

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Britannica joins the blogosphere You may have read or heard that the other day Encyclopaedia Britannica introduced WebShare, which it describes as a "special program for web publishers, including bloggers, webmasters, and anyone who writes for the Internet. You get complimentary access to the Encyclopaedia Britannica online and, if you like, an easy way to give your readers background of the topics you write about with links to complete Britannica articles." Apparently it should not take more than 24 hours to receive your free subscription, and WebShare offers you a range of widgets and twitter feeds of the encyclopaedia's content to add to your blog or site. If you are interested, there are various help, FAQ and other pages from the main page here. The move has been met with muted approval on the blogs and sites I've read so far. (Thanks also to Dave Lull for sending me a link to the Britannica's article about the initiative.) Barry Graubert of Content Matters blog writes: "Britannica has clearly been on a path towards the dead pool since the birth of Wikipedia. Initially, they simply took the position that a wisdom of crowds approach could not compare to the expertise of their editors. That argument...
PREVIOUS POST
Maintaining the dignity of plants Owing to some of my recent less-than-serious posts, I have to assure you that what follows is not a joke. The Swiss federal government's ethics committee on non-human biotechnology has mapped out guidelines to help granting agencies decide which research applications deeply offend the dignity of plants — and hence become unfundable (see Nature News, 23 April 2008; subscription required). All plant biotechnology grant applications must now include a paragraph explaining the extent to which plant dignity is considered. The Swiss constitution says that the 'dignity of creatures' must be taken into account in the gene-technology arena, which is why the term has been adopted into the regulations. The government called on the advice of its ethics committee two years ago to help develop a definition for plants. The committee has created a decision tree presenting the different issues that need to be taken into account for each case. But it has come up with few concrete examples of what type of experiment might be considered an unacceptable insult to plant dignity. Hybridization of roses? Shelling peas? Treading grapes? Or, as suggested by one online commenter, mowing the lawn?

Maxine

Science editor who likes reading crime fiction

Search

Become a Fan

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments